University of Virginia Library

Letters To Editor

University Party Stand Clarified

U-Party Stand

We of the University Party who
have repeatedly heard our
organization referred to as "that
party for independents" would
like to clear up this obvious misunderstanding
once and for all by
again reaffirming that anyone-regardless
of fraternity status, regardless
of prior achievements and
regardless of school-is eagerly accepted
as a member of the University
Party. If one wishes to
identify a criterion for membership,
then let it be the desire to
participate meaningfully in University
politics.

There is not presently nor has
there ever been a policy of hostility
toward fraternities: this is
evidenced by past platforms and by
the significant percentage of our
members who are fraternity men
(about 35 percent). We encourage
the participation of all in the selection
of our platform and candidates,
and urge any interested
students to attend our meeting
Wednesday night, at which time
our platform will be adopted. All
students who wish to participate in
the selection of candidates for the
upcoming Student Council and
Judiciary Committee elections
must join the party by Wednesday
night.

We hope that this letter has
cleared up any misconceptions with
respect to the University Party.

White Bros. & Sisters

Sunday a memorial service was
held in Cabell Hall for a remarkable
man, Dr. Martin Luther King,
Jr. All his life he worked passionately
for the rights of his fellow
men, no matter what the color
of their skin. Yet the service ended
on a sour note.

As the mourners filed out of the
service, they were handed a sheet
of paper which was addressed to
"White Brothers and Sisters."
This report was both inappropriate
and advocated everything which
Dr. King was against.

The first statement that I disagree
with is, "Let it be a national
day of mourning for the
scores of black people gunned
down by the cops and National
Guard during the last three years,
victims of a rich government which
replies to the cries of misery with
military occupation of poor neighborhoods."
In case the writers
don't realize it, the National Guard
and "cops" were fired at by snipers
during the riots. Cries of misery
are one thing, but lawless looting
and burning are another. I can't
see the author's implied comparison.

Secondly, there is no such thing
as "justified open rebellion" in
the United States today. If the
authors can actually call Dr. King
their hero, then they can not advocate
open rebellion.

The clinching point came when
I read, "In opposing the oppressive,
bankrupt, capitalist American
regime and the ethic it perpetuates
and depends upon, the
black people in rebellion are fighting
for all of us." Here the authors
come out against a "capitalist"
American regime. I am curious
what kind of "regime" the writer
wish to live under.

One final point of disagreement.
At the end of the paper the authors
state, "The racists are calling for
law and order." Then do they call
Dr. King a racist because he advocated
order. Do they call the
other rational Negro leaders who
are pleading for peace in the streets
racists. I guess only people like
Stokey Carmichael aren't racists.

This whole approach to the problem
is not the answer. It doesn't
even make sense. Violence does not
breed justice, only more violence.
Dr. King's dream will come true
one day, and all races will sit
together at the "table of brotherhood."
Violence, however, will
only prolong the coming of this
day.

Anti-Leaflet

The gentlemen who passed out
the leaflets at the mourning service
for Rev. Martin Luther King
served only to divide further national
opinion and heighten tension
and suspicion. Though there is
much in our domestic and foreign
policies which must be reexamined,
the leaflets passed out
can only further polarize the nation
and prevent the desired reforms.

What our beleaguered nation
needs is unity and not international
scapegoats upon which to
fasten our hatreds. To those who
insist that my letter is a product
of Fascism or Racism, I must
point out that their actions may
serve to postpone changes which
could prevent another Watts, another
Birmingham or another
Saigon. We shall overcome-but
not with the aid of men such as
these.

Troubled Times

President Johnson has said that
these are troubled times; and I,
for one could not agree with him
more. To be sure, nothing could be
more tragic at this time for civil
rights than the senseless murder of
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Of
all men, both black and white, no
one has done as much to bring
home the desperate plight of the
Negro today peacefully to the
American public. But now that he
is dead, what will come of it?

Newscasters reporting on the
King murder said this will probably
speed up America's long, hot summer
of 1968. As a resident of Washington,
D. C. I watched rioting
Negroes burn and loot the downtown
sector. Are they rioting for
civil rights. Are they protesting inequality?
No! Emphatically No!!
While watching the newscasts, I
noticed that many of the looters
were waving to the cameramen
with stolen goods in their hand.
The reporter said many were taunting
police with "go ahead and
shoot, go ahead," knowing full
well the police would not.

This, as an American citizen,
makes me violently angry, but I
will vent my anger somewhat by
writing this letter and not by
looting stores. To my mind there
are Negroes, and there are niggers;
there are Jews, and there are
kikes; there are Italians, and there
are wops; and there are Poles,
and there are polaks. The distinction
between these categories lies
in what these people do with their
misfortune. If they wallow in the
quicksand of an unpopular
minority, then their fate is obvious.
But if they stop, take stock
of their situation, and work and
work hard to lift themselves; they
can rise and assume their rightful
place in society as contributing
individuals. Of course, Negroes
are black; but it seems to me that
Polish, Italian, and Jewish names
add as much color to these people
as the Negroes' skin does to them.

I consider myself a reasonably
liberal individual, and I have worked
for civil rights causes in Washington,
D. C. But I cannot tolerate
senseless destruction and crime.
When will people realize that murder
and violence in the streets
will not solve one's problems?
When will people realize that
understanding and a lot of hard
work is the only way up? The
Jews did it. The Irish Catholics
did it, and elected a President.
The Negroes can do it, but not
through violence.

I know my thoughts are not
original. They may not even be
verbalized proficiently, but I felt
that I had to say something. I
have merely tried to express my
emotions during a time when a
same democratic government seems
overridden with insanity.

Farcical Cuba

Our friendly socialist Alan Ogden
has truly outdone himself this
time in his farcical article "Ogden
on Cuba." I am really happy
that Mr. Ogden blew his mind
at the national S.D.S. convention
at Lexington, and I am quite
sure that at this gathering of extreme
leftist radicals he received a
truly objective view of what is
going on in communist Cuba today.

Mr. Ogden demonstrates his
complete subservience to the
"party line," and his total ignorance
of existing conditions in Cuba
when he makes the absurd statement
that "Democracy is unstrained
and organic in Cuba."
If this is so, I would like to ask
Mr. Ogden how is it that Cuba
is ruled by a brutal dictator that
vehemently crushes all opposition
to his communist regime.

And if as he states, "the people
are building the Revolution
steadily and joyfully," why is it
that throngs of Cubans have already
and are still risking their
lives to escape the inferno that
Castro has created on that island.

Mr. Ogden, quite apparent in
his hatred of individualist capitalist
America, has obviously succumbed
to the big lie that the
Communists are so eager, and in
his case so successful, in propagating.
I hope it is not too late
for Mr. Ogden to awaken in
time to see Castro as the ruthless
tyrant, in the mould of Adolph
Hitler, that he really is.

Calvert Again

It amazes me that anyone should
feel it incumbent upon himself,
when viewing a three-man race,
to make a vicious personal attack
upon one candidate whom he does
not know and whose motivations
he could not possibly understand,
without in any way commenting
upon the qualifications of the
others. I am referring to the letter
of Mr. J. Terry Cox which appeared
in yesterday's Cavalier
Daily concerning the candidacy of
Gordon Calvert for President of
the College.

The nature of the charge is
ludicrous: Mr. Cox's "point" is
that anyone whose extraordinary
qualifications include activities in
which he is now engaged (i.e.,
Student Council) shows by offering
himself for the presidency of the
College (an offer which involves
giving up an $1800 job this summer)
some lack of integrity. Mr.
Cox is mistaken.

Without considering whether
or not Mr. Calvert has accomplished
more during his two
months on Council than Mr. Cox
did during his entire term, and
ignoring the fact that Mr. Cox
is not even in the College. I would
like to make the following points:

I have known Gordon for several
years and I find Mr. Cox's charge
that Gordon "exhibits a lack
of personal ethics" to be entirely
without foundation. Gordon's decision
to run for President of the
College was made after much
serious consideration of his obligations,
both to the Student Council
and to our Honor System. His
decision is entirely the result of a
strong feeling of personal obligation
toward our Honor System.
His motivations derive from the
very opposite characteristics, Mr.
Cox, from any which would reflect
a "lack of personal ethics."

McCarthy

In the midst of an increasingly
hectic political campaign and as
inter disturbances occur in
many urban areas, a rather serious
charge is being levelled at Senator
Eugene McCarthy. Some of his
critics are contending that he has
failed, during the course of his
campaign, to discuss civil rights
or the problems of urban unrest.

It is unfortunate that the attention
given to the Senator's stand
with regard to the Vietnam conflict
has obscured his position on
these important matters. An examination
of Senator McCarthy's
statements and speeches during the
course of the New Hampshire
and Wisconsin primaries indicates
that he is giving serious attention
to the problems of equal justice
and opportunity for all Americans.
An synopsis of these statements
may be helpful to your readers
to clear up any doubts or confusion
that may exist.

"The important war is the one
we are neglecting. It is the war
on poverty and the problems of
America. What we have to deal
with, and I think we must acknowledge
this, is a problem
which is different from any that
any other nation has faced in the
past, but also a problem which
no nation has ever had the
potential to solve in the way which
we have the potential to solve.

I refer to the problems of the
American city, race and problems
of poverty in the United States.
And I believe we have to look
upon it essentially in terms of
the historical record; we have living
with us a kind of colonial nation
in our own midst; more than 20
million people who are not allowed
full participation in our
culture; not full economic participation,
not participation in the
political processes of America, not
participation in our educational
institutions-but instead in a kind
of sub level of living. (Nashua, New
Hampshire-March 2, 1968.

"We say all right-we've set
you free-you're a free people
now. The fact is that they are
not-they are still colonials living
among us and we must initiate
or carry forward in the next five,
ten, fifteen, or twenty years-as
long as it takes-a program to
bring about this transition; a
program to make them a part
of American society and American
culture. This is the great
need and the great demand that
must be reflected in a massive
housing program and a carefully
thought through program for reeducation
and for upgrading
the people in this class.
(Milwaukee, Wisconsin, April 1,
1968)

"America needs a massive program
to raise the income of all
of those who are today classified
as existing under conditions of
poverty. The cost is five billion,
ten billion, fifteen billion dollars
a year but we can afford it. We
have the potential; if we have the
intellect and beyond that the will
to carry out the programs. (Manchester,
New Hampshire, February
26, 1968)

"Last summer the streets o
our cities were scarred by lawlessness,
violence, and desperate fear.
Now the Commission has projected
us year after year of continuing
violence. The Government has
taken almost no significant action
to remedy the basic conditions
which lead to riots, and it has even
cut back on the pitifully small
programs designed to keep the
young people of the ghettos usefully
employed during the summer.
(Bedford, New Hampshire,
February 26, 1968)

"If we continue on this present
course-the course of inaction in
the face of danger-we may well
witness a bloody fulfillment of the
President's grim prospect-a prospect
of mounting lawlessness,
troops and tanks in our streets,
and increasing fear and desperation
among many of our people.
We must have a full-scale and
determined effort to win the war
at home-a war which today we
are hardly fighting." (Manchester,
New Hampshire, March 9, 1968)

Some critics have suggested that
Senator McCarthy must change
his campaign style if he is to be
effective. He must, they argue, appeal
to the emotions of the American
electorate and appeal to
selective groups rather than to
the population as a whole. It is
doubtful that the Senator will do
this for his own value system and
view of the American electorate
mitigate against it. He assumes,
as V. O. Key did, that voters
are rational. That-in the long run
-they will respond favorably to
those candidates who present
logical and rational arguments for
their position. Senator McCarthy's
own philosophy with regard to this
matter was perhaps best stated in
an address he gave more than two
years ago;

"Do not yield to the temptation
to simplify or to compromise
methods in pursuit of acceptable
purposes, to consider persons or
groups as expendable, or to what
T. S. Eliot has described as the
worst treason-to do the right
thing for the wrong reason. Do not
corrupt language and be attentive
to protecting its integrity: first,
as to the obvious obligation to
speak the truth; and second, in
the more commitment to
preserve and protect the meaning
of words. Man has an immediate
responsibility, to other men no
less than to himself, for the vitality
of language.

He must discriminate and
defend the difference between mass
communication, for the control of
men, and the knowledge of man
which must be offered us for human
participation."